Mesomysis ullskyi (Czerniavsky, 1882), Metamysis ulskyii Sars

Nonindigenous Occurrences: This species was introduced into the Kuibyshev reservoir in the 1950s–1970s along with other mysids to enrich the commercial fishing operations (Shakirova et al. 2014), and it has now spread to the Saratov and Volgograd reservoirs (Kurina and Seleznev 2019). It is also present in the Kama River and the upper part of the Volga reach (Borodich and Havlena 1973). It invaded the Aral Sea, Kazakhstan in 1965 (Aladin et al. 2004), likely via independent dispersal from the Kayrakkum and Farkhad reservoirs (Plotnikov et al. 2014). In addition, Paramysis ullskyi was intentionally introduced into Lake Balkhash, Kazakhstan, in 1958 to strengthen the forage base for commercial fish. Since its introduction, Paramysis ullskyi has become naturalized in the lake and has the second largest range in the eastern basin due to its broad salinity tolerance (Isbekov et al. 2019).

Potential pathway(s) of introduction: Transoceanic shipping (ballast water)

Paramysis ullskyi could potentially be introduced to the Great Lakes via ships declaring “No Ballast on Board” (NOBOB), which are exempt from ballast water exchange. The majority of ships entering the Great Lakes are NOBOB vessels, and 43% of these ships contain residual water with less than 10‰ salinity (Joehengen et al. 2005). In the study, the temperature of the residual water from the vessels sampled ranged from -0.7 to 23.9°C; Paramysis ullskyi is likely to survive the salinity and temperature of the NOBOB ballast water. Its eggs are contained in the female’s brood pouch (Borodich and Havlena 1973); thus, it is unlikely that the eggs can hitchhike or survive in ballast water. The adult forms are likely able to survive in ballast water due to their tolerance of a broad range of salinities (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998). In contrast, while Paramysis spp. typically have a broad range in salinity tolerance, Ovcarenko et al. (2006) has shown that there can be high mortality for the congeneric, P. lacustris, when the salinity change is sudden, such as when changing ballast water. Similar effects for P. ullskyi may be possible. Mortality occurs when they approach 15 PSU. However, Paramysis ullskyi is not currently found in waters that have direct trade with the Great Lakes.

Paramysis ullskyi has a moderate probability of establishment if introduced to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: High).

The native and introduced ranges of Paramysis ullskyi have similar climate and abiotic conditions to those of the Great Lakes (Reid and Orlova 2002; Grigorovich et al. 2003; U.S. EPA 2008). This species is likely capable of overwintering in the Great Lakes, as it does occur in reservoirs elsewhere that have ice cover in the winter (Borodich and Havlena 1973). Paramysis ullskyi prefers shallow, sandy/muddy habitats; thus this species is likely to find a suitable habitat in the shallower/nearshore portions of the Great Lakes. This species may benefit from increased salinization attributed to climate change because it can better tolerate higher salinities compared to species native to the Great Lakes. Paramysis ullskyi has the potential to invade North American lakes that currently lack other mysid shrimp (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998).

Because Paramysis ullskyi has a non-specific omnivorous diet, it would likely be able feed effectively on algae and zooplankton found in the Great Lakes, if it were introduced. Paramysis ullskyi can produce up to 2 generations per year (Borodich and Havlena 1973). Paramysis ullskyi produces an average of 17–55 embryos, which is slightly more than the number of embryos produced by Paramysis intermedia.

Paramysis ullskyi has successfully established in several other waterbodies where it has been introduced. The species was deliberately introduced to the Volga River, where it successfully established a population in its lower reaches, and it now and predominates the mysid community there (Borodich and Havlena 1973).  It was also introduced into the Kuibyshev reservoir in the 1950s–1970s, along with other mysids, to enrich the commercial fishing operations (Shakirova et al. 2014) and has since spread to the Saratov and Volgograd reservoirs (Kurina and Seleznev 2019). In the Saratov reservoir, it is found in high abundance (50 ind/m2) and contributes the majority of crustacean biomass (1.22 g/m2) (Kurina 2017). Further, P. ullskyi invaded the Aral Sea, Kazakhstan in 1965 (Aladin et al. 2004), likely via independent dispersal from the Kayrakkum and Farkhad reservoirs (Plotnikov et al. 2014). The natural dispersal capacity of P. ullskyi is lower than P. lacustris but similar to P. intermedia (Wittman and Ariani 2009).

Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...

Environmental	Socioeconomic

If introduced to the Great Lakes, Paramysis ullskyi may reduce zooplankton biomass through feeding and consequently impact planktivorous fish populations (Spencer et al. 1991; Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998); however, studies have not been conducted to determine if these effects are significant where Paramysis ullskyi has been introduced. In the Saratov reservoir, it is found in high abundance (50 ind/m2), contributing the highest biomass of the five non-native mysid species present (1.22 g/m2) and thus may be a superior competitor to other crustaceans in the reservoir (Kurina 2017). Studies suggest that due to biomagnification of contaminants from mysids to fish, levels of PCB and mercury in pelagic fish are higher in North American lakes that contain mysids compared to those that lack mysids (Rasmussen et al. 1990; Cabana et al. 1994); however, the aforementioned studies do not specifically investigate the impacts of Paramysis ullskyi on biomagnification of contaminants.

Two mysid species are currently found in the Great Lakes, and if Paramysis ullskyi were introduced, it could potentially compete with these species. The only species of mysid that is native to the Great Lakes is Mysis diluviana (formerly Mysis relicta), and it generally inhabits deep, cold waters, residing mostly in the hypolimnion of the offshore waters. This native species is considered to have a key role in the offshore food web, providing important food resources to fish. Hemimysis anomala (bloody red shrimp) is a recent invasive (detected in Lake Michigan in 2006) that has already established and expanded throughout the Great Lakes. Hemimysis anomala inhabits shallow rocky habitats and thus it does not overlap substantially with Mysis diluviana. Hemimysis anomala has rapidly expanded throughout nearshore environments in the Great Lakes (Walsh et al. 2012). Given the habitat occupied by Paramysis ullskyi, it is unlikely to directly compete with Mysis diluviana; it may overlap some with the nonnative Hemimysis anomala given that they both prefer shallower nearshore environments, although the difference in substrate preference may limit direct competition. However, there are no direct studies to assess the impact that Paramysis ullskyi may have on these or other crustacean species in the Great Lakes.

There is little or no evidence to support that Paramysis ullskyi has the potential for significant socio-economic impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

It has not been reported that Paramysis ullskyi poses a threat to human health or water quality. There is no evidence that this species negatively impacts infrastructure, economic sectors, recreational activities and associated tourism, or the aesthetic appeal of the areas it inhabits.

There is little or no evidence to support that Paramysis ullskyi has the potential for significant beneficial impacts if introduced to the Great Lakes.

It is unknown if the introduction of Paramysis ullskyi to the Great Lakes would increase fish productivity. Paramysis ullskyi was intentionally introduced to fisheries in Europe in an attempt to improve fish production. The ultimate impact of the introduction is unknown. However, it can potentially compete with other planktivorous invertebrates and fish for zooplankton prey, which could ultimately harm fish populations (Spencer et al. 1991; Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998).

*Ballast water regulations applicable to this species are currently in place to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes via shipping. See Title 33: Code of Federal Regulations, Part 151, Subparts C and D (33 CFR 151 C) for the most recent federal ballast water regulations applying to the Great Lakes and Hudson River.

Note: Check federal, state/provincial, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.

Control

Biological
There are no known biological control methods for this species.

Physical
There are no known physical control methods for this species.

Chemical
There are no chemical control methods for this species.

Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.